US
Attack on Syria Would be Illegal 'Act of War'
The Obama administration is right to be cautious about US
intervention in Syria. For the US to launch a military strike
without UN Security Council sanction would constitute an illegal
'act of war' against a sovereign state. (The Kosovo precedent
cannot make an illegal act legal.)

By Alastair Crooke

August 28,
2013 "Information
Clearing House - "CSM"
- A scrum
has erupted in the press these last few days: heads down, padded
shoulders locked, like some football “rush” intent on pushing
and jostling a president cradling the ball of military
intervention physically across the “red line” on Syria. The
speed and thrust of this dash for the line, however, seems to
convey the momentum of unchallengeable “truth.” Awkwardly,
reality is rather different: There has been absolutely no
evidence published to support the allegation that President
Bashar al-Assad’s forces were responsible for this latest, or
any other gas attack in Syria.

Unwelcome
as it may be to certain European and regional governments, who
have been cheerleading the case for American intervention,
neither the Russians nor the Chinese, both of whom are well
represented on the ground in Syria, have believed either the
earlier
US finding of the use of chemical weapons by Syrian security
forces or indeed this latest allegation.

On the
contrary,
Russia previously has given evidence to the
UN Security Council to show it has seen opposition forces
that have used sarin gas against civilians (echoing the
conclusion of Carla del Ponte, the former international
prosecutor and current
UN commissioner on Syria). And Russian officials state that
the latest use of gas was delivered by a homemade missile, fired
from a position known to be under opposition control.

Although
the European constituency (Britain and France) are chafing with
impatience to begin retaliation even before evidence has been
amassed, the US administration has been more cautious. This is
wise. Wars are always treacherous in their facts, and for the US
to launch a military strike without Security Council sanction
(which it will not get) would constitute an illegal “act of war”
against a sovereign state – and a crime. (The Kosovo precedent
cannot change an illegal act into a legal one).

But more
substantially, what might be the outcome of, let us say, a
cruise missile fired at a military target in Syria: a rhetorical
strike, as it were, rather than a major military intervention?

So far,
Syria has always turned a blind eye. The government knows well
that Western special forces have supported the insurgents, but
it has chosen to overlook this covert aspect. Mr. Assad has
always insisted, however, that his “red line” is Syrian
sovereignty. An explicit and public US attack on his country
plainly crosses this “line.” It is by no means assured that the
Syrian government would remain passive: that it would not
respond. Neither is it likely that Russia or China easily would
tolerate the West again (after
Libya) bypassing the UN and the international order to
concoct some spurious “Friends of Syria” legitimacy for its
illegal military action.

Still less
clear would be the consequences inside Syria of such an
intervention. Does anyone seriously imagine that a cruise
missile attack on their homeland would make ordinary Syrians
long for the inchoate, warring, and violent opposition factions
to take over their country? It will of course do the reverse. It
will strengthen Assad. But it will concomitantly reinforce the
conviction of extremists and their varied intelligence-service
patrons that only by a “massacre” which can be blamed on Assad
will the West be driven to overthrow Assad – a result the
opposition is unable to achieve by its own efforts alone.

And then,
there are the “known unknowns”: The
Middle East is both angry and frightened, too; it is
bitterly divided and increasingly violent. To toss a few cruise
missiles into this volatile, unstable brew simply is to invite
the unforeseeable and the unwanted to make its explosive
appearance.

Alastair Crooke, the legendary ranking MI6 officer in the Middle
East, is now director of the Conflicts Forum, which promotes
dialogue between the West and political Islam.

We ask readers to play a proactive role and click
the "Report link [at the base of each comment] when
in your opinion, comments cross the line and become
purely offensive, racist or disrespectful to others.

In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)